[Koha-bugs] [Bug 8236] Prevent renewing if overdue or restriction

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8236

--- Comment #39 from David Cook <dcook at prosentient.com.au> ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> Created attachment 17926 [details] [review]
> Bug 8236 Block renewing for overdue items
> 
> At the end , I found more convenient to deal with the restriction case in
> same patch.
> I keep what seems to be the existing logic - a patron can't renew when he's
> restricted (his opac file is freezen) -
> making it more consistent. Any renewal for a restricted patron is now also
> blocked from webservice and clearly not possible from the pro interface
> unless by checking 'override_limit'.
> If someone would like to allowed renewal for restricted patrons, I think it
> would be not very complicated to add a syspref ( a line of code in
> HasWhateverRenewalToBeBlocked and some addings in opac-user.tt)
> As for the main object of the patch - blocking for late document - I made
> some ajustements you pointed out and one change in the logic :
> rather than hiding the 'Renew all' button, I move the checking in
> renewscript.pl. So, this button is always available in case of big list of
> checkouts items.

Olivier, I'm not sure that I completely understand what you are saying, but I
think it's quite important to not allow any renewals for restricted patrons at
all and that the button should not be visible for a restricted patron, as Owen
mentioned in bug 10089.

In Comment 33, you mention that we should leave renewals for restricted patrons
up to the discretion of the librarian, but I don't think this is a good idea.
First, we block all check outs for restricted patrons. Renewals really are just
another type of check out, so logically it makes sense to block these too.
Second, even though there is red text saying the patron is blocked, I have
reported cases where library staff have accidentally ignored this and renewed
patrons away (much to the chagrin of their co-workers/supervisors). I think
it's necessary to enforce the prevention of renewals for restricted patrons.

In any case, I think these are still conceptually two different issues that
should probably be handled by different patches. That said, I haven't looked at
your newest code. If you prevent all renewals for restricted patrons in all
cases and hide the renew buttons, as Owen suggested in bug 10089, then I would
have no problem using your patch instead of mine. 

In all honesty, another reason I separated the patches is because I wanted the
"prevent renewals for restricted patrons" behaviour to be introduced as quickly
as possible. The more atomic the patch, the easier it is to test/QA, and the
faster it gets into the codebase. 

Rant aside, once you rebase this patch, I'd be more than happy to test it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.